PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
Locked
User avatar
millionwaves
Auron
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Urbana, Illinois
Contact:

PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by millionwaves » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:52 pm

PACE is pleased to announce the official format for the 2009 National Scholastic Championship, which will be held at George Mason University on May 23 and 24.

The 2009 PACE NSC will have a 64-team field. All teams will play a minimum of fifteen games. The playoff format will be changed from previous years, as follows:

The 64 teams will be divided into 8 brackets of 8 teams each, and all teams will play seven games. The teams will be ranked on win-loss record. The top 2 teams from each bracket will move on to the championship playoffs. The third- and fourth-place teams will go to another playoff bracket, the fifth- and sixth-place teams to another, and the seventh- and eighth-place teams to another. Teams cannot be eliminated from a higher playoff bracket based on a paper tiebreaker. This means that all ties of more than two teams, and all two-way ties for second, fourth, or sixth place, will be played off on 10-question games immediately following the completion of round 7.

Each 16-team playoff group is divided into two brackets of eight, such that teams are not in the same playoff group as the other team from their prelim group. Each team plays the other seven teams in its playoff bracket and is ranked on won-loss record and PPG.

In the second, third, and fourth playoff groups, the top 2 teams from each bracket will play a two-round single-elim with consolation game to determine their final ranking. The other 6 teams will play their equally ranked counterpart in the other bracket for final ranking.

In the championship playoff group, the top team in each bracket must clear the rest of the field by 2 games. If the top team is 2 or more games ahead of the next team after round 14, then they win the playoff bracket outright and advance to the tournament final. If there is a tie of two or more teams, a one-game playoff (two teams), or a series of PPG-ranked playoff games (more than two teams), will determine the winner of the playoff group. If the first-place team is exactly one game ahead of the second-place team, then the two teams will play an advantaged final, with the first-place team needing to win only one game, but the second-place team needing to win two consecutive games to win the bracket. If there is a tie for second place, and the teams in the second-place tie are exactly one game behind the first-place team, then those teams will play a tiebreaker game, and the winner will enter the advantaged final against the first-place team.

Once both bracket champions have been determined, the remaining teams in the championship brackets will play their equally ranked counterparts in the opposite bracket for final placement. This includes the two second-place teams in each bracket playing an overall third-place game for the tournament.

The two playoff bracket champions will meet in an overall final to determine the 2009 PACE national champion. This will be a one-game final, with the exception of the case in which the two teams previously played in the tournament (that is, were in the same preliminary bracket). If that scenario occurs, the final will be advantaged, with the winner of the first meeting between the teams holding the advantage.

Thus, the entire 64-team field will be ranked from 1 to 64 at the 2009 PACE NSC. The teams in the championship playoff group will receive trophies recognizing their exact finish, as will the champions, runners-up, and semifinalists in each of the other three playoff groups.

The first three rounds of the playoffs (rounds 8-10 of the overall tournament) will be played Saturday night, so that we may finish the whole tournament on Sunday afternoon at roughly the same time as in past years.

This format was used, in somewhat compressed form, at Maryland's fall tournament, and is expected to be used again at the Weekend of Quizbowl events this spring. In addition to correcting any problems with the format that come up during those events, PACE encourages questions or comments about the tournament format either within this thread, or by e-mail to Trygve Meade at trygvemeade@gmail.com.
Trygve Meade
Illinois, ACF

Above the Star-Apple Kingdom

dschafer
Rikku
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Carnegie Mellon University

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by dschafer » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:03 pm

What is the advantage of playing an advantaged-style final to get out of your 8-team playoff bracket if a single-game final is going to be used to determine the overall winner? My impression of advantaged-style finals following round-robins is that they effectively force the best and second-best teams to play a best-of-three series to determine the winner. However, I don't necessarily see the utility of this format if a best-of-three is not going to be used for the overall final.
Dan Schafer
Carnegie Mellon '10
Thomas Jefferson '06

User avatar
theattachment
Rikku
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:57 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, MN

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by theattachment » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:16 pm

dschafer wrote:What is the advantage of playing an advantaged-style final to get out of your 8-team playoff bracket if a single-game final is going to be used to determine the overall winner? My impression of advantaged-style finals following round-robins is that they effectively force the best and second-best teams to play a best-of-three series to determine the winner. However, I don't necessarily see the utility of this format if a best-of-three is not going to be used for the overall final.
I agree. Advantaged finals cause the best team to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're best, forcing them to win an extra game over their closest competition. Additionally, it lessens the impact of that best team getting owned on a packet that doesn't help them out. In my mind, if team X has a one or two game lead record-wise over the playoffs compared to team Y, X should have an advantage of one game and run that game; if it's tied, have a best of three. One game finals are only good for the dramatic effect of one game deciding it all; they make good television, but poor quiz bowl.
Colin O'Donnell -- ex-Eden Prairie High School (man, that feels nice to say), eventually University of Minnesota

User avatar
btressler
Tidus
Posts: 615
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:23 pm
Location: West Chester, PA
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by btressler » Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:24 pm

To add to the commentary:

If "paper tiebreakers" are bad (and I agree they are), why does one possibly earn one team an advantage in the final?

Example: Team A beats Team B in their preliminary brackets. Team A wins its playoff bracket, but loses one game somewhere along the way. Team B goes undefeated. Thus both teams have exactly one loss going into the final.

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:24 pm

What are the approximate starting and ending times for the games on Saturday and Sunday?
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
millionwaves
Auron
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Urbana, Illinois
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by millionwaves » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:27 pm

Hi, everyone:

Here is some information regarding starting and ending times for both Saturday and Sunday of the NSC!


Teams should check in no later than 8:30 AM on Saturday. The first tossup of round 1 will be read at no later than 9:30 AM; if all teams arrive on time we can do the opening meeting and get to round 1 even earlier than that.

We will be playing 10 rounds on Saturday, which will also have a lunch break and the Cooper presentation. This will conclude no later than 7 PM.

Teams will know by Saturday night what their Sunday schedule is, and should report directly to their Round 11 rooms on Sunday morning. The first tossup of Round 11 will be read at 9:00 AM on Sunday.

Round 15, which is the last round that all teams will play, will finish no later than 4 PM on Sunday.

The finals games, the all-star game, and the awards presentation will conclude no later than 6 PM on Sunday.

We encourage teams to plan to stay for the finals games, all-star game, and awards, all of which have proved quite riveting in the past. There are also collegiate tournaments being held at GMU on Sunday evening and during the day Monday, which high school players (and coaches, parents, etc) are welcome to participate in as players, staffers, or spectators. As Monday is Memorial Day, we expect that many tournament participants will not need to hurry back to school and may be able to plan for a later departure than usual.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at trygvemeade@gmail.com.
Trygve Meade
Illinois, ACF

Above the Star-Apple Kingdom

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo » Tue May 12, 2009 9:41 am

millionwaves wrote:The first tossup of Round 11 will be read at 9:00 AM on Sunday.

Round 15, which is the last round that all teams will play, will finish no later than 4 PM on Sunday.
Not that we're in a big hurry, but why do these 5 games take so long to play on Sunday? Just trying to plan our itinerary around the matches at this point.
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
BuzzerZen
Auron
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: Arlington, VA/Hampshire College
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by BuzzerZen » Tue May 12, 2009 9:51 am

Caesar Rodney HS wrote:
millionwaves wrote:The first tossup of Round 11 will be read at 9:00 AM on Sunday.

Round 15, which is the last round that all teams will play, will finish no later than 4 PM on Sunday.
Not that we're in a big hurry, but why do these 5 games take so long to play on Sunday? Just trying to plan our itinerary around the matches at this point.
4PM is the absolute latest we would expect round 15 to be done, in a scenario where multiple things have gone terribly wrong. It will most likely conclude rather earlier.
Evan Silberman
Hampshire College 07F

How are you actually reading one of my posts?

User avatar
aestheteboy
Tidus
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:07 pm

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by aestheteboy » Tue May 12, 2009 2:45 pm

Does prelim record matter for the purpose of ranking within the playoff bracket? For instance, if one team goes 6-1 in prelims and 7-0 in playoffs, is that team tied or advantaged against a team that goes 7-0 in prelims and 6-1 in playoffs?
Daichi - Walter Johnson; Vanderbilt; U of Chicago.
Daichi's Law of High School Quizbowl: the frequency of posting in the Quizbowl Resource Center is proportional to the likelihood of being overrated.

User avatar
BuzzerZen
Auron
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: Arlington, VA/Hampshire College
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by BuzzerZen » Tue May 12, 2009 4:12 pm

aestheteboy wrote:Does prelim record matter for the purpose of ranking within the playoff bracket? For instance, if one team goes 6-1 in prelims and 7-0 in playoffs, is that team tied or advantaged against a team that goes 7-0 in prelims and 6-1 in playoffs?
Advantaged. There will be no overlap between prelim opponents and playoff round-robin opponents.
Evan Silberman
Hampshire College 07F

How are you actually reading one of my posts?

User avatar
aestheteboy
Tidus
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:07 pm

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by aestheteboy » Tue May 19, 2009 8:44 pm

I'd like to make a proposal regarding the playoff format: no top-ranked team versus top-ranked team matches should take place in the first three games of playoffs, which occur on Saturday night (i.e. all three matches Saturday night will be between rank 1 and rank2). The top-ranked team of each prelim bracket, presumably, are going to be the best teams of the tournament and the ones most likely to win. I think it would be much more exciting if all 1v1 games are left for Sunday, since the outcome for those matches are less easy to predict. Also, I think it's generally a good idea to have the most important games in the morning when the players are the most refreshed and least tired.
Daichi - Walter Johnson; Vanderbilt; U of Chicago.
Daichi's Law of High School Quizbowl: the frequency of posting in the Quizbowl Resource Center is proportional to the likelihood of being overrated.

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Mechanical Beasts » Tue May 19, 2009 10:25 pm

This is one of the things that the ICT does right--we played three 1v2 matches, then three 1v1s--and I agree that we should emulate it if possible.
Andrew Watkins

User avatar
jonpin
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 2035
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: BCA NJ / WUSTL MO / Hackensack NJ

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by jonpin » Wed May 20, 2009 1:08 am

millionwaves wrote:The two playoff bracket champions will meet in an overall final to determine the 2009 PACE national champion. This will be a one-game final, with the exception of the case in which the two teams previously played in the tournament (that is, were in the same preliminary bracket). If that scenario occurs, the final will be advantaged, with the winner of the first meeting between the teams holding the advantage.
This drew some at the time it was posted, but here's a specific point that I don't know was made: Let's say Team X and Team Y are in the same prelim bracket. Team X beats Team Y, but loses to Team Z (who suffers multiple losses). The two teams are both 6-1 and advance to the playoff brackets. Both teams win their playoff brackets to advance to the Championship Final. Team X gets an advantage, correct?
Even potentially worse, the Team Y wins the prelim group at 6-1, Team X is second at 5-2 but defeated Team Y, and everyone else takes 3+ losses. Should they wind up in the Final, according to the rules Team X would have an advantage, despite having a worse record in their shared group.

These scenarios are unlikely and extremely unlikely, respectively (as I expect that the two finalists will both be among the 8 "#1 seeds" in pre-tournament seeding, and thus in different preliminary groups), but the championship format should be safe from irregularities.
Jon Pinyan
Coach, Bergen County Academies (NJ); former player for BCA (2000-03) and WUSTL (2003-07)
HSQB forum mod, PACE member
Stat director for: NSC '13-'15, '17; ACF '14, '17, '19; NHBB '13-'15; NASAT '11

"A [...] wizard who controls the weather" - Jerry Vinokurov

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by cvdwightw » Wed May 20, 2009 1:47 pm

jonpin wrote:
millionwaves wrote:The two playoff bracket champions will meet in an overall final to determine the 2009 PACE national champion. This will be a one-game final, with the exception of the case in which the two teams previously played in the tournament (that is, were in the same preliminary bracket). If that scenario occurs, the final will be advantaged, with the winner of the first meeting between the teams holding the advantage.
Even potentially worse, the Team Y wins the prelim group at 6-1, Team X is second at 5-2 but defeated Team Y, and everyone else takes 3+ losses. Should they wind up in the Final, according to the rules Team X would have an advantage, despite having a worse record in their shared group.
OH GOD CANADIAN FINALS FORMAT

I understand most of the rationale for this, given that teams are largely playing different opponents, but...certainly after Jon's hypothetical situation, I think you guys see the resemblance between this and what Jerry called a "completely unjustifiable (that is, if your goal is to crown a legitimate champion) finals format."
Dwight Wynne
socalquizbowl.org
UC Irvine 2008-2013; UCLA 2004-2007; Capistrano Valley High School 2000-2003

"It's a competition, but it's not a sport. On a scale, if football is a 10, then rowing would be a two. One would be Quiz Bowl." --Matt Birk on rowing, SI On Campus, 10/21/03

"If you were my teammate, I would have tossed your ass out the door so fast you'd be emitting Cerenkov radiation, but I'm not classy like Dwight." --Jerry

User avatar
BuzzerZen
Auron
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: Arlington, VA/Hampshire College
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by BuzzerZen » Wed May 20, 2009 2:11 pm

cvdwightw wrote:
jonpin wrote:
millionwaves wrote:The two playoff bracket champions will meet in an overall final to determine the 2009 PACE national champion. This will be a one-game final, with the exception of the case in which the two teams previously played in the tournament (that is, were in the same preliminary bracket). If that scenario occurs, the final will be advantaged, with the winner of the first meeting between the teams holding the advantage.
Even potentially worse, the Team Y wins the prelim group at 6-1, Team X is second at 5-2 but defeated Team Y, and everyone else takes 3+ losses. Should they wind up in the Final, according to the rules Team X would have an advantage, despite having a worse record in their shared group.
OH GOD CANADIAN FINALS FORMAT

I understand most of the rationale for this, given that teams are largely playing different opponents, but...certainly after Jon's hypothetical situation, I think you guys see the resemblance between this and what Jerry called a "completely unjustifiable (that is, if your goal is to crown a legitimate champion) finals format."
Matt and I have consulted, and the verdict is that the finals match will be a one-game final no matter what.
Evan Silberman
Hampshire College 07F

How are you actually reading one of my posts?

dschafer
Rikku
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Carnegie Mellon University

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by dschafer » Wed May 20, 2009 11:40 pm

dschafer wrote:What is the advantage of playing an advantaged-style final to get out of your 8-team playoff bracket if a single-game final is going to be used to determine the overall winner? My impression of advantaged-style finals following round-robins is that they effectively force the best and second-best teams to play a best-of-three series to determine the winner. However, I don't necessarily see the utility of this format if a best-of-three is not going to be used for the overall final.
Dan Schafer
Carnegie Mellon '10
Thomas Jefferson '06

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Matt Weiner » Wed May 20, 2009 11:42 pm

The single-game final is between teams who have not met before and can be compared with a clean slate. This condition does not apply to the winner of the semifinal brackets.
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

dschafer
Rikku
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Carnegie Mellon University

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by dschafer » Thu May 21, 2009 1:16 am

Matt Weiner wrote:The single-game final is between teams who have not met before and can be compared with a clean slate. This condition does not apply to the winner of the semifinal brackets.
(Emphasis mine)

It is possible for the two teams in the finals to have met in the prelims; wasn't that situation the motivation for the switch to "always one-game final"?

On a more general note, I simply don't see the point of the advantaged final if you are going to go to a single-game final. The two teams in the advantaged final have already played, so we already have the results of one game between them. The point of an advantaged final is that we don't trust the result of one game; there's too much randomness, so we play three games and take the winner of two. The key point here is that one game is considered to be untrustworthy; no team should be knocked out of a tournament based on one bad game alone.

The reason single-elimination is scoffed at is simple: one bad game, anywhere in the tournament, and you're done! A single-elimination final isn't quite as bad as a complete single elimination tournament, but it still allows one bad game to prevent a team from winning the title. My claim is this: if you're going to let a single loss knock a team out, then forget the advantaged final; why burn three packets playing teams off to make the final if you only will use one in the final? It's the same as playing a best-of-three series in the semifinals of a single-elim tournament, then playing a one-game final.

My proposed solution: prelim games determine who makes the playoffs, and after that, they are discarded. Then, you play an advantaged final to get out of your group, then a best-of-three for the finals. Note that with this format, you cannot lose the tournament if you only lose one game. Yeah, two teams could meet in the finals who played in the prelims, but they knew from the start that their prelim game wouldn't matter, and so no one can complain that they got ripped off by losing their prelim win. Also, the odds that the top two teams in the tournament are in the same prelim bracket are slim to none, assuming decent bracketing.
Dan Schafer
Carnegie Mellon '10
Thomas Jefferson '06

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Matt Weiner » Thu May 21, 2009 1:40 am

Dan,

The reason single-elimination is bad (as it pertains to your point) is that it offers no way to rank teams beyond the champion; if the top 2 teams in the tournament meet in the first round of a 16-team single elim, the second-place team finishes tied for ninth instead of in its rightful place. If you believe that the game format and questions of a tournament are legitimate, then game results are valid and single-elimination is a perfectly valid way to determine the champion, but a poor way to accomplish nearly any other goal, which is why it is not used at the PACE NSC.

No team has a right to "have a bad game" without consequence. At any tournament, and especially at a national tournament, every game does and should count. For example, at this tournament, a team that goes 6-1 in its prelim bracket behind a 7-0 team will make the championship playoffs, but a team that goes 5-2 (losing, likely, to the 6-1 team) will not. At NAQT HSNCT, 6-4 teams make the playoffs; 5-5 teams do not. ACF Nationals, NAQT ICT, all other tournaments, work the same way. Unless you propose to add a weighted best-of-three series to every single adjacent-pair matchup after the prelims of this tournament, and every other tournament, then you must recognize that a single game can and will eliminate someone from a tournament, and that doesn't mean the tournament is unfair.

Extending the final of the PACE NSC to three games is unrealistic, and would remain so even if we used a shorter game format. No tournament anywhere plays an unweighted best-of-three final. Surely you do not believe that all tournaments in quizbowl this past year were illegitimate? We are not using a combined playoff bracket like ACF Nationals or NAQT ICT do, so there is no logical way to weight the final. (Since the semifinals are in pools, weighted finals make sense there). A single game under the unique circumstances of this format is fair; having teams either win or lose to determine who is first or second is the most direct way to conclude a tournament, and we are confident that our questions are of an appropriate quality and difficulty to allow every game's result to be meaningful.
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

dschafer
Rikku
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Carnegie Mellon University

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by dschafer » Thu May 21, 2009 3:31 am

Matt Weiner wrote:Dan,

The reason single-elimination is bad (as it pertains to your point) is that it offers no way to rank teams beyond the champion; if the top 2 teams in the tournament meet in the first round of a 16-team single elim, the second-place team finishes tied for ninth instead of in its rightful place. If you believe that the game format and questions of a tournament are legitimate, then game results are valid and single-elimination is a perfectly valid way to determine the champion, but a poor way to accomplish nearly any other goal, which is why it is not used at the PACE NSC.
Fair enough; this is a criticism of single elimination that does not apply to just the single elimination final.
No team has a right to "have a bad game" without consequence. At any tournament, and especially at a national tournament, every game does and should count. For example, at this tournament, a team that goes 6-1 in its prelim bracket behind a 7-0 team will make the championship playoffs, but a team that goes 5-2 (losing, likely, to the 6-1 team) will not. At NAQT HSNCT, 6-4 teams make the playoffs; 5-5 teams do not. ACF Nationals, NAQT ICT, all other tournaments, work the same way. Unless you propose to add a weighted best-of-three series to every single adjacent-pair matchup after the prelims of this tournament, and every other tournament, then you must recognize that a single game can and will eliminate someone from a tournament, and that doesn't mean the tournament is unfair.
I agree that one game results certainly matter; what I claim is that a one-loss team should never be eliminated from championship contention. Taking the top two from each prelim bracket ensures this; doing an advantaged final in the playoff brackets ensures this, then the single elimination removes that (in my opinion) desirable characteristic. I suggest that every team in the tournament (and in particular, a team that will win any non-bad game it plays) has the right to one (and exactly one) bad game without having this eliminate them from contention for the championship.
Extending the final of the PACE NSC to three games is unrealistic, and would remain so even if we used a shorter game format. No tournament anywhere plays an unweighted best-of-three final. Surely you do not believe that all tournaments in quizbowl this past year were illegitimate? We are not using a combined playoff bracket like ACF Nationals or NAQT ICT do, so there is no logical way to weight the final. (Since the semifinals are in pools, weighted finals make sense there). A single game under the unique circumstances of this format is fair; having teams either win or lose to determine who is first or second is the most direct way to conclude a tournament, and we are confident that our questions are of an appropriate quality and difficulty to allow every game's result to be meaningful.
I claim most major tournaments in quiz bowl use a best-of-three final. A round-robin with advantaged final is (assuming no external influences on the top 2) a best-of-three between the top two teams. HSNCT uses double elimination in the playoffs; if we assume the 1 and 2 teams will never lose except to each other, that is a best-of-three final as well. PACE NSC is unique in that its pre-final setup nearly ensures the top two teams haven't met before; that doesn't mean they shouldn't play more than one game between them to decide the winner.

Put another way: PACE NSC will be the only major tournament this year in which a team can finish second despite having only one loss, and the odds that this will occur is quite high. I claim that a team with exactly one loss being eliminated from the tournament is a bad thing.

EDIT: Phrasing
Dan Schafer
Carnegie Mellon '10
Thomas Jefferson '06

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Mechanical Beasts » Thu May 21, 2009 4:23 am

I suggest that every team in the tournament (and in particular, a team that will win any non-bad game it plays) has the right to one (and exactly one) bad game without having this eliminate them from contention for the championship.
I repeat your claim but replace the number "one" with "two." Or "three." What now! Surely this format is invalid because it doesn't have a final series of best-n-of-2n+1 games!
Look, dude, the only values for the number of permissible bad games that really have some kind of metaphysical justification behind them are zero (you have to win games to win this tournament) and infinity (no one wins, but at least no one loses!). Is it inherently bad that this format doesn't give a freebie to teams that lose a game? Would it be less justified to give a freebie to teams that lose two?

This is a real tournament; real factors like endurance and consistency have to have an effect on how good teams are at winning this real tournament. Would it also measure something to play a million games of a million questions and derive statistics about teams' peak performance and consistency both? Of course. But you're a long way from proving that it's terrible to measure the thing that we're measuring, and an even longer way from proving that it's feasible to interminably extend tournaments for the purposes of not eliminating teams that lose games.
Put another way: PACE NSC will be the only major tournament this year in which a team can finish second despite having only one loss, and the odds that this will occur is quite high.
This just isn't true. If two teams are tied for top record going into an ACF-format final, it's one, not three, games. It's only if the one team is one more down against common opponents than the other that it's an advantaged final (and there are certainly scenarios in which it's simply not a three-game series in any way, i.e. there are scenarios where the advantaged team lost to the disadvantaged team in the prelims, but, for example, took two downs to other teams that the advantaged team didn't).
Andrew Watkins

User avatar
Deviant Insider
Auron
Posts: 4622
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Deviant Insider » Thu May 21, 2009 6:34 am

Dan is correct. At all ACF format tournaments this year, the top two teams would have played each other before the final, so a team would have to lose twice to get eliminated. If we're wrong, then name the tournament where this was not the case.

Also, begging the question is not a great argument against his point, a point that has been used to design almost all good quizbowl tournaments. It is feasible to design a tournament that requires a team to lose twice to be eliminated--it in fact is being done at a much larger tournament the following week--and we all agree for 51 weeks out of the year that this is an important consideration.

I don't want to make a huge deal about this, because PACE NSC is a great tournament despite this minor flaw, but I'm not sure why we can't agree that it is a flaw and that it could be fixed if the Tournament Directors wanted to fix it.
David Reinstein
PACE VP of Outreach, Head Writer and Editor for Scobol Solo and Masonics (Illinois), TD for New Trier Scobol Solo and New Trier Varsity, Writer for NAQT (2011-2017), IHSSBCA Board Member, IHSSBCA Chair (2004-2014), PACE Member, PACE President (2016-2018), New Trier Coach (1994-2011)

User avatar
youngster68
Lulu
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by youngster68 » Thu May 21, 2009 3:50 pm

Maybe this information is already out there and I missed it...Saturday morning we meet in Robinson Hall like for WoQB?
Coach Stephen C Young
Faculty Advisor for Hunter College High School Quiz Bowl

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15270
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by AKKOLADE » Thu May 21, 2009 4:28 pm

No, it's the Lecture Hall (yes, that's the name of the building). You can see it on a campus map here.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo » Thu May 21, 2009 5:38 pm

Where is the best spot for (hopefully free) parking?
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Matt Weiner » Thu May 21, 2009 5:45 pm

Caesar Rodney HS wrote:Where is the best spot for (hopefully free) parking?
Lots A and K are free on weekends and are the closest such lots to the tournament buildings. The Mason Pond garage is slightly closer and enclosed, but will cost $8.
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo » Thu May 21, 2009 6:12 pm

Hm, those really aren't close at all. Alright, we'll leave 15 minutes earlier then. Thanks Matt. See you on Saturday. Everyone have a safe drive/flight please.
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
Frater Taciturnus
Auron
Posts: 2463
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:26 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Frater Taciturnus » Thu May 21, 2009 6:50 pm

Caesar Rodney HS wrote: Everyone have a safe drive/flight please.
Yes, please do this, everyone.
George Berry
georgeberry.vcu@gmail.com
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007

User avatar
Dan Greenstein
Auron
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Takoma Park, MD

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Dan Greenstein » Thu May 21, 2009 6:59 pm

Shcool wrote:...I don't want to make a huge deal about this, because PACE NSC is a great tournament despite this minor flaw, but I'm not sure why we can't agree that it is a flaw and that it could be fixed if the Tournament Directors wanted to fix it.
Yes, this is a flaw that can easily be fixed, and we can argue about this all summer. But from a practical perspective, two major considerations are this:

1. An unweighted best-of-three final adds potentially two games to the tournament, which could add an hour to the length of the tournament. To change that now would risk some teams missing their Sunday evening flights, which is a more important issue than this fairness issue.

2. An unweighted best-of-three final requires at least one more packet to be ready. It is simply not responsible to change the format in the interest of fairness if there is a danger of there not being enough packets available to properly run the tournament and budget for an all hell breaks loose scenario.

This is a flaw that can easily be fixed...in 2010. I guarantee this is something PACE will be discussing in the next year.
Daniel Greenstein
University of Maryland (2000-2004)
Eleanor Roosevelt High School (1998-2000)

User avatar
Deviant Insider
Auron
Posts: 4622
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Re: PACE NSC 2009: Tournament Format

Post by Deviant Insider » Thu May 21, 2009 8:08 pm

That's a fair response, Dan. I respect the fact that now is not a good time to make a change.

One other option to consider is to do the playoff rounds with a double elimination format. Teams don't have to stop playing once they have been eliminated from Championship contention, since they can continue to play to settle places 3-16 (or corresponding places in lower brackets).
David Reinstein
PACE VP of Outreach, Head Writer and Editor for Scobol Solo and Masonics (Illinois), TD for New Trier Scobol Solo and New Trier Varsity, Writer for NAQT (2011-2017), IHSSBCA Board Member, IHSSBCA Chair (2004-2014), PACE Member, PACE President (2016-2018), New Trier Coach (1994-2011)

Locked